Helix

Free Body Surface Area Calculator

Body surface area by the four formulas clinicians actually use — Mosteller, Du Bois, Haycock and Gehan-George — with the reason medicine cares about this number rather than your weight.

Height and weight

cm
kg
Body surface area — Mosteller
1.93
101% of the typical adult male reference (1.9 m²)
Mean of four
1.93
Range
1.93–1.93
Spread
0.5%
between formulas
The four clinical formulas, same body
Click a bar to make that formula the headline number. They agree within a few percent for mid-range adults and diverge at the extremes of height and weight.

Mosteller (1987): The one most hospitals and chemotherapy protocols use, because it can be done on any calculator and agrees closely with Du Bois.

Reference values: roughly 1.7 m² for an average adult, about 1.9 m² for men and 1.6 m² for women. Neonates sit near 0.25 m². This is an estimate from height and weight — it is not a measured surface area, and it is not a substitute for a clinician's dosing calculation.

Why anyone computes this

BSA exists because a lot of physiology scales with surface area rather than mass — cardiac output, glomerular filtration, and the tolerated dose of a cytotoxic drug. Set a dose per square metre and see what it becomes for this body, then watch how it tracks weight.

75 mg/m² → 144 mg
Total dose
144mg
Per kg equivalent
1.93mg/kg
Cardiac index basis
5.8L/min
at CI 3.0 L/min/m²
BSA vs reference
+1%
Mosteller BSA across weight, at 178 cm
The curve is concave: surface area rises with weight but with a shrinking return, because the weight exponent is well under 1. Doubling weight does not double surface area.
kg

The dose figure here is arithmetic on an illustrative rate, not clinical advice. Real protocols cap BSA (commonly at 2.0 m²), round to available vial sizes, and adjust for organ function.

What body surface area is

Body surface area (BSA) is the total external area of your skin, expressed in square metres. Nobody measures it directly outside of a research lab — the original determinations involved coating subjects in paper or plaster and measuring the wrapping. Everything in clinical use today is an estimate from height and weight, fitted to those early direct measurements.

It matters because a surprising amount of physiology scales with area rather than mass. Heat loss happens across a surface. So does gas exchange, and — usefully for medicine — so does the maximum dose of a cytotoxic drug a body will tolerate. When a number needs to be normalised for “body size” in a way that weight alone gets wrong, BSA is the standard denominator.

The four formulas

Mosteller (1987)

BSA (m²) = √( height(cm) × weight(kg) ÷ 3600 )

The simplest of the set and the most widely used in hospitals, because it needs one square root and agrees with Du Bois to within a couple of percent across the normal adult range. If a chemotherapy order sheet shows a BSA, it was probably this.

Du Bois & Du Bois (1916)

BSA (m²) = 0.007184 × height(cm)^0.725 × weight(kg)^0.425

The original power-law fit, derived from just nine directly measured subjects — one of whom was a child. It remains the reference equation that later formulas are validated against, despite its tiny sample, and it tends to read slightly low in obese and very small patients.

Haycock (1978)

BSA (m²) = 0.024265 × height(cm)^0.3964 × weight(kg)^0.5378

Fitted to a sample spanning infants through adults, which is why it is the common choice in paediatrics. Note the higher weight exponent — it leans more on mass and less on height than Du Bois does.

Gehan & George (1970)

BSA (m²) = 0.0235 × height(cm)^0.42246 × weight(kg)^0.51456

A least-squares fit to 401 directly measured surface areas, the largest validation set of the four. Statistically the best-supported equation of the group; it never displaced Mosteller in practice because it is harder to do in your head.

Where they disagree

BodyMostellerDu BoisHaycockGehan-George
160 cm, 55 kg1.561.561.571.58
178 cm, 75 kg1.931.931.931.93
190 cm, 120 kg2.522.472.552.53
100 cm, 16 kg (child)0.670.660.670.68

In the middle of the adult range the four are effectively interchangeable. The gap opens up at high body weights, where Du Bois reads lowest — a systematic difference that is large enough to change a rounded drug dose, which is why institutions standardise on one formula rather than letting each clinician pick.

Why medicine doses by BSA

Three main uses:

  • Cytotoxic chemotherapy. Doses are prescribed in mg/m². The convention dates to mid-century animal work showing that maximum tolerated dose scaled with surface area across species better than with body weight. Because the therapeutic window is narrow, even a modest scaling improvement was worth adopting — and once trial protocols were written in mg/m², the unit was locked in.
  • Cardiac index. Cardiac output divided by BSA, in L/min/m². Normal is roughly 2.5–4.0. Indexing is what lets you compare a 55 kg patient's heart to a 110 kg patient's.
  • Renal function and other clearances. Estimated GFR is reported per 1.73 m², the historical average adult BSA — see the GFR calculator for that normalisation in action.

Worth knowing: BSA dosing is openly criticised. It ignores body composition, organ function and enzyme activity, all of which affect drug clearance more than surface area does. It survives because it is standardised, cheap, and better than dosing by weight alone — not because anyone thinks skin area is the mechanism.

BSA vs BMI

These get confused because both combine height and weight. They are not alternatives:

BSABMI
QuestionHow big is this body, physiologically?Is this weight high for this height?
Direction of heightTaller → larger BSATaller → lower BMI at the same weight
Used forDrug dosing, cardiac index, eGFR normalisationWeight classification, population screening
Has healthy rangeNoYes (18.5–25)

There is no such thing as a “good” BSA. A large BSA is not a risk factor; it is a bigger denominator. If you want the weight-status question, use the BMI calculator; if you want the composition question, the body fat calculator and lean body mass calculator are the right tools. BSA answers a scaling question, and only that.

Frequently asked questions

What is a normal body surface area for an adult?

The conventional average adult figure is about 1.7 m², with men typically near 1.9 m² and women near 1.6 m². A newborn is around 0.25 m². Anything from roughly 1.4 to 2.3 m² is unremarkable in adults, since BSA tracks both height and weight.

Which BSA formula is most accurate?

For mid-range adults the four standard formulas agree within a few percent, so the practical answer is whichever one your institution uses. Mosteller dominates clinical practice because it is a single square root and matches Du Bois closely. Gehan-George was fitted to the largest set of directly measured surface areas, and Haycock is the usual choice in paediatrics.

Why is chemotherapy dosed by body surface area?

Cytotoxic drugs have a narrow therapeutic window, and early work found that maximum tolerated dose across species scaled better with surface area than with body weight. BSA became the standard because it happened to be the best available scaling variable at the time, and the practice has persisted for consistency across decades of trial protocols. It is now openly criticised as a crude proxy that ignores organ function and body composition.

How do I calculate BSA with the Mosteller formula?

Take your height in centimetres times your weight in kilograms, divide by 3600, then take the square root. So a 178 cm, 75 kg adult gives (178 × 75) ÷ 3600 = 3.71, and the square root is 1.93 m². In imperial units the divisor is 3131 with inches and pounds.

Is BSA better than BMI?

They answer different questions. BMI is a size-for-height index used to classify weight status; BSA is a scaling factor for physiological capacity like cardiac output, renal clearance and drug dosing. BSA is not a health category — a tall, lean person and a short, heavy person can share a BSA while sitting in very different BMI classes.

Why do the four BSA formulas give different answers?

Each was fitted to a different, small set of directly measured surface areas using different height and weight exponents. Du Bois used nine subjects in 1916; Gehan and George used 401 in 1970. The fits agree in the middle of the data they were built from and drift apart at the extremes of height, weight and age, which is where the choice of formula starts to matter.

More free tools

All tools →